Stepping stones along the way

By Said Kamal * Controversy over the Oslo Accords has never ceased since the agreement signed on the White House lawn on 13 September 1993. The accords have had their categorical critics and their absolute supporters -- there is, it seems, no middle ground.

Some of the strongest arguments in favour of the accords included the idea that, for the first time, the Israelis officially recognised the Palestinian people, the PLO and the Palestinian National Authority, allowing a section of Israeli society to rectify its opinion of the Palestinian people and their rights.

Also for the first time, Palestinian lands populated by 2.5 million people came under Palestinian sovereignty. They are administered by a National Authority and subject to its institutions, policies and economic, social and development plans.

By granting the Palestinians the right of self-determination, the agreement brought about an important democratic development: the first elections on Palestinian soil under the auspices of the National Authority.

This Palestinian entity won legal recognition from most of the world community. The PNA was able to establish strong relations with the most powerful players in the global arena.

Those opposed to the accords argued that they led to official Palestinian recognition of Israel at a time when this state was still violating Palestinian and Arab rights.

The accords, furthermore, ignored Palestinian rights as decreed by the UN partition resolution and other international legal decisions. They suspended many of these rights within the framework of the open negotiations, without giving the Palestinians the ability to counter Israel's overwhelming monopoly of power.

The Oslo Accords also put a temporary end to the Palestinian Intifada, which was effectively undermining Israeli security.

Finally, it is said that these accords paved the way for attempts to strip the PLO of its revolutionary character and marginalise its role both domestically and internationally.

A fair evaluation of the Oslo Accords, I believe, must take into account the local, regional and international conditions prevailing when they were signed. If they represent a first step toward the achievement of a just and comprehensive peace settlement, it would be wrong to consider them a "final solution" to the Palestinian problem. It would be equally wrong to assume that, under the prevailing conditions, more should have been achieved.

When the Likud came to power in 1996, the situation became extremely complicated, undermining the possibility that the agreement could become a basic factor in achieving a complete settlement.

There was no guarantee, however, that, had the Labour Party remained in power, or regained the majority, the agreement would have led to a just and comprehensive peace which would restore the Palestinians' rights and lead to rapprochement between Arabs and Jews.

What is now required is a new phase in the struggle -- a phase which requires another series of negotiations, under more favourable circumstances, to reach a just settlement which would restore Arab rights.

The Oslo Accords have some shortcomings, but it would be wrong to blame it for all the problems now in evidence. We must look seriously for the real shortcomings in the way the Arab-Israeli conflict is being handled, and examine the factors which led to the accords. We should work on improving them to serve Arab interests.

Taking into account the nature of the present Israeli government and the possibility that it may remain in power for several years to come, the Palestinians and the Arabs in general should deal with the Palestinian issue with great caution and wisdom, and avoid encouraging the Israeli government to scrap the accords in toto. In fact, they must do just the opposite: hold on to any gains, no matter how slight, accrued from the agreement, and work to broaden these gains through a better Palestinian political and administrative performance.

The Palestinian issue is not isolated from other issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Arabs must therefore review the nature of that conflict and the factors that have constituted a threat to Arab security over the past decades.

Arab efforts to reach a just comprehensive peace would be aided immeasurably by a balanced and unified Arab appeal to the world community, expressing confidence and strength and emphasising mutual interests. The Arabs should use the institutions and mechanisms of international law in this endeavour.

On the other hand, while conducting this battle, the Arabs must not forget the importance of the Israeli domestic front, which will be of crucial importance. They should address the Israeli public, understand the different components of Israeli society, and find an appropriate discourse. They must urge the Israelis to abandon their aggression and hatred of the Arabs, implanted by the Zionist parties, and encourage a better understanding of Arab rights. This appeal should be directed at that section of the population which takes exception, as do the Arabs, to the prevailing ideology in Israel.

Ultimately, the Oslo Declaration of Principles and the consequent accords are only a beginning, a step or two along an extremely difficult path. But they are nevertheless an important step along the path of Palestinian national struggle. If they can be developed, they may lead towards a gradual acceptance of the principle of Palestinian and Arab lands in exchange for Israeli peace and security. This acceptance, however, will only be possible if the Arab leadership makes good use of all the available opportunities to effectively deal with Israel and create a propitious environment, which will allow us to regain the rights the Israelis continue to deny us in principle.